SOMATRA LINES, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND DRAKE INSURANCE CO. OF NEW YORK, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Somatra Lines sued security company Rayne International for negligent hiring after a guard employed by Rayne stole vehicles from Somatra's premises. Based on a stipulated statement of facts showing Rayne followed industry custom and had no knowledge of the guard's criminal history, the trial court found no negligent hiring liability, and this appeal affirms that judgment.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that no negligent hiring occurred, holding that the security company was not shown to have negligently employed the guard given that it followed industry custom and had no knowledge of the guard's actual criminal history or age.
[1] A trial court's conclusion on a stipulated statement of facts will not be interfered with on appeal.
[2] Conformance to industry custom is evidence of reasonable care in a negligence action.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We may not interfere with the trial judge's conclusion upon a stipulated statement of facts that the defendant security company was not, as alleged, shown to have negligently employed a guard who later stole several vehicles from the plaintiff's premises.”
Establishes the standard of review: appellate court cannot overturn trial court's factual conclusions from stipulated facts regarding negligent hiring.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 4, 1978, Rayne International entered into a security agreement with Somatra Lines to provide guard services. Rayne hired a 17-year-old guard …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Negligent Hiring cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
We may not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusion upon a stipulated statement of facts that the defendant security company was not, as alleged, shown to have negligently employed a guard who later stole several vehicles from the plaintiff’s premises.1 Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1978); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Friedman v. Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc., 380 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980); Sea Board Air Line R. Co. v. Watson, 94 Fla. 571, 113 So. 716 (1927) (conformance to custom in industry evidence of reasonable care); cf. Mallory v. O’Neil, 69 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1954); McArthur Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, 240 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); compare, Williams v. Brooklyn District Telegraph Co., 12 Misc. 565, 33 N.Y.S. 849 (City Ct. of Brooklyn 1895) (jury finding of negligent hiring).
There is no occasion to consider any possible alternative theory of liability since no other was contained in the plaintiff’s pleadings. See, Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981).
Affirmed.
. The stipulation stated:
4. That on April 4, 1978, Defendant, RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, INC., entered into a security agreement with Plaintiff, SO-MATRA LINES, LTD., to provide guard services. The parties stipulate that the attached security agreement is a true copy of the agreement mentioned.
5. That the FBI reports, one night between April 4, 1978, and April 10, 1978, Defendant, RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, INC., supplied the services of a security guard who, unbeknown to the Defendant, RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, was a minor and a convicted felon.
6. That during the early hours of April 10, 1978, while an employee of Defendant, RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, INC., was on guard duty, the seven aforementioned vehicles were stolen from the area. There was no evidence of knowledge by the RAYNE INTERNATIONAL security guard on duty that night that a theft had taken place or evidence of resistance to the theft. It was further reported, by the FBI, that the original equipment keys were used to steal the vehicles, and that another bag of keys was subsequently found the next day by a fence around the property. Furthermore, the Defendant, RAYNE, and its security guards, had no access to any of the vehicle keys.
7'. That the theft was caused by the 17 year old minor felon, security guard of Defendant, RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, INC., who was a guard on duty, as reported by the FBI on one of the previous nights. That although the theft was caused by this guard, he was not within the scope of his employment with Defendant, RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, INC., while causing the theft. The 17 year old guard had filled out an application with RAYNE INTERNATIONAL and had not indicated any previous criminal record or that he was under age. He was, in fact, operating under a temporary license issued by the State of Florida, which is a procedure allowed by law and standard and customary in the security industry, and Defendant, RAYNE INTERNATIONAL, was awaiting notification from the State of Florida as to the issuance of a permanent license. The 17 year old minor guard was subsequently convicted of this theft.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ole to determine whether a viable cause of action is alleged by Nazareth against Herndon. . Cf. Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1954). . Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 73 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1954); Somatra Lines, Ltd. v. Rayne Int'l, Inc., 419 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Williams v. Feather Sound, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1374 (Fla.1981); Wayne v. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 316 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); McArthur Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, 240 So. 2…
-
Arky v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 527 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ville, 438 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Grady v. Grady, 395 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See also Don Suntan Corp. v. Tanning Research Laboratories, Inc., 505 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Cf. Somatra Lines, Ltd. v. Rayne International, Inc., 419 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ginsberg v. Goldstein, 404 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). As we will discuss in detail later in this opinion, the practice seems to us to be proper only where there is reasonable detrimental reliance upon a later-reversed trial…
-
H.J.J., Inc. v. Party Prods., II, Inc., 712 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…claim was not pled or raised below, hence, H.J.J. is precluded from raising it for the first time on appeal. See United Bank of Pinellas v. Farmers Bank of Malone, 511 So. 2d 1078, 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Somatra Lines, Ltd. v. Rayne Int’l, Inc., 419 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3 DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Gertrude M. Watson, 94 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1927)
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1954)
- Hortensio Delgado and Nellie Geraldine Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1978)
- McARTHUR Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, 240 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Morton Friedman v. Mut. Broad. Sys., Inc., 380 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)